´óÏó´«Ã½

Ìý

Commentators discuss Labour's motion to be voted on today calling for Rupert Murdoch to abandon News Corp's bid for outright ownership of BSkyB.

the vote is significant for party politics:

"We are in uncharted waters. In my working lifetime I have never known the Opposition Party to put down a motion in the House of Commons, which the Government of the day decides then to endorse and vote for. Today is therefore likely to prove an historic day in which MPs will bind together on behalf the nation they represent to call upon a commercial entity to end its endeavour to take over another."

that the Tories backing Labour is a note-worthy moment:

"Miliband today bouncing Cameron into opposing Murdoch's BSkyB grab is a table-turning moment. Gordon Brown boasted his party was best when it was Labour.
Ìý
"Miliband's best when he follows his moral compass instead of fretting about offending diehard critics. I know he worried about confronting the Aussie-American who controls more of the British media than is good for democracy.
Ìý
"Until a little over a week ago, he was paralysed by Labour's old thinking, constrained in a Murdoch straitjacket."

However, David Cameron has been dragged into supporting the motion:

"Few people are prepared to listen to the government, either, when it points out that it is easier in situations like these for opposition parties to demand action than for ministers to work out what it is legally safe to do.
Ìý
"In opposition, if you manage to hurt the government, the best tactic is to keep on punching the bruise. Miliband has done it brilliantly over the last few days. He can't keep doing it forever, but while his luck and courage lasts, Cameron can do nothing but reel towards the ropes."

The that the corporate governance group Pirc had been warning about a BSky B bid for some time:

"There were shareholders who complained when James Murdoch became chairman of BSkyB in 2008, despite concerns about his independence. All credit to institutions such as Aviva, Legal & General and the Co-op. Pension funds and other investors ought now to be asking why their investment managers simply waved through the appointment."

that Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB bid "violently collides" with the national interests:

"This is about Britain's capacity to sustain a good capitalism, hawklike about monopolists, and a good democracy - hawklike about private, insider lobbying. The takeover of BSkyB could scarcely raise more profound issues. It is about whether Britain is prepared to sustain a state within a state - a proposition to which all of us, of whatever political hue, must surely say no. Which will then require the creation of whatever processes that are needed to make that 'no' an ongoing reality. We are going to have to start thinking harder about capitalism, ownership, the media and democracy. The thinking starts now - and Britain will be the healthier for it."

The former Director General of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ :

"Given that News Corp has always had effective control of BSkyB, the more interesting question now is not whether the takeover will be allowed to go ahead but how much of its existing stake in the broadcaster will News Corp be allowed to own in the future? If it is ruled that it is not a 'fit and proper' organisation to own all of the company, why would it be allowed to keep any shares at all, or certainly retain a stake above the 29.9 per cent level at which competition authorities usually rule that a shareholder has control? It is also questionable whether a Murdoch should continue to be chairman."